Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708934 --- Comment #6 from Marcela MaÅlÃÅovà <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-31 07:35:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > Imho in license should be postgresql instead of BSD. > > > > > > I have explicitly asked upstream about versions and they state that the content > > > of BSD file is wrong, but the BSD license is correct. The upstream issue is > > > referenced in .spec file, so I think we should be OK. > > > > > From your comment (License is not that clear) isn't clear, that you have > > statement from upstream. Sometimes is in specfile included email, where was > > license claimed. > > I would expect that reviewer could click on the link on the same line to see > what is going on, but my expectations might be overly high. > The link could be gone, but the package could still life in some old release. License must be stated clearly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review